Obama Birth Certificate Gets a Curious Mention in Al Sharpton Speech

Al Sharpton
The so-called “Birther” movement was used as a major distraction, during the 2008 Presidential campaign and throughout the early months of Barack Obama’s presidency. Over the past couple of years, the issue has been largely forgotten. It is curious, then, that Al Sharpton chose to mention the President’s birth certificate during a recent speech in Newark, NJ.

Whilst the speculation surrounding Obama’s birthplace has been widely attributed to some imagined lunatic right-wing fringe element, it was actually given birth to – pun intended – by supporters of Obama’s main Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

According to a report in British newspaper The Telegraph, the rumor began in earnest when an anonymous email was circulated, which stated “Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy,” it said. “She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth.” A copy of what has been claimed is Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate surfaced, which was instantly branded a “crude” forgery – ironically, by the same people who laugh at the idea that the “long form” US birth certificate eventually released by the White House may be forged. How is it known that this email was circulated by Clinton’s supporters or, possibly, by her campaign? Because, the Telegraph report points out, it just happened to emerge at the height of a bitter fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. It is no secret that there was no love lost between Obama and the Clintons. Former President Bill Clinton was known to have made some very harsh remarks about Obama. An interesting side note is that neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton were ever branded racist, as every right-wing Obama critic is.

Evidence that the President’s Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery is sketchy. At the same time, evidence supporting its authenticity is also questionable.

On the one hand, it has been claimed that the document – which has only ever been made available in electronic format – has “layers”, which supposedly proves that it was created on a computer, as opposed to being a scan of an original paper document. The well-known myth-debunking website, snopes, lays out the case for the document being genuine, although that case is actually as flimsy as the case for it being fake; both sides in the argument cite “expert” testimony to support their claims. The problem with this, of course, is that even “experts” have personal political opinions, which will, inevitably, influence their assertions.

Testimony from Hawaiian officials, regarding the authenticity of the birth certificate can be immediately discounted; Quite apart from the Pacific islands state being deep blue territory is the fact that – were it ever proven that Obama was not, in fact, born there, the repercussions for Hawaii, for the hospital in which Obama was reportedly born and for the Democratic Party, as a whole, would be truly devastating. The vested interest of Hawaiian officials, therefore – both at the State government level and the hospital in question – is too enormous to regard any testimony from them as objective.

The birther movement, today, is spearheaded principally by two individuals: Property tycoon Donald Trump and Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Neither of these two individuals could possibly be viewed as objective; Trump, although held in disdain by most Conservatives, still aspires to be the Republican candidate for President. Arpaio, it is very well known, has an axe to grind against an administration that has continually attempted to intimidate him because of his anti-illegal immigrant stance. It is extremely difficult, therefore, to take any claim – from either man – about Obama’s place of birth seriously.

The best argument that the birthers have is the lengths to which Obama, his campaign team and, later, his administration appeared to go to stall the release of his birth certificate – including the initial claim by the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital that they could not release the document. Critics of the birther theorists point to the announcement of Obama’s birth in Hawaiian newspapers as proof positive that the President was born there. Such announcements, however, can easily be placed in any newspaper without verification.

It seems utterly inconceivable that anyone would dare to run for the office of President of the United States, knowing that they are not eligible, by reason of birthplace. At the same time, the only hard evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii is an electronic document that took an extraordinarily long time to appear and that, whilst not a proven forgery, is also not proven as being genuine.

Back to the recent speech by known liar, tax-cheat and race-baiter Al Sharpton – the man who supported, and may even have created, Tawana Brawley’s false rape allegation, 25 years ago. Speaking Sunday at the Metropolitan Baptist Church in Newark, Sharpton rambled on about Jim Crowe and attempted, as usual, to assume the mantle of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. During the speech, Sharpton referred to Obama’s critics, who, he said, have proved that America has no yet become a “post-racial society” by calling for the President’s birth certificate. This was a curious reference which makes one wonder where Sharpton is going: In his endless and determined efforts to tear the country apart along racial lines, is he so entirely bereft of ideas that he chose to dig up this subject in order to, once again, make the ridiculous assertion that questioning the President’s place of birth is racist? Did the White House, perhaps, ask him to throw the comment out, in an attempt to resurrect the distraction of the birth certificate? With the Administration’s continued desperate efforts to bury numerous scandals, such as Fast and Furious, the Benghazi consulate attack and the IRS political targeting tactic, it would be no surprise if the White House decided to resurrect this issue; knowing that Obama is no danger, whatsoever, of being outed as foreign-born.

Another possible explanation for Sharpton attempting to breathe life into the distraction that keeps on distracting is the emerging strategy of attempting to link gun-ownership and racism: This idiotic connection could be conjured up in the following way: People who support gun-rights are predominantly right-wing; people who question Obama’s Hawaiian birth are predominantly right-wing; people who believe that George Zimmerman had the law on his side when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin are predominantly right-wing; ergo, gun-rights advocates are all racist, birther lunatics who should be disarmed for the good of society.

Sharpton’s curious mention of the Obama birth certificate issue was certainly no accident. The contention has always been that birthers are racists and, now, the case is being built that gun-owners are racists. The push to disarm law-abiding Americans is being deliberately fashioned into some bizarre new civil rights issue.

The last time a United States government passed laws to forcibly disarm a segment of the population, it was black Americans who were disarmed, in preparation for the introduction of slavery. This is a matter of historical fact, that all Americans – both black and white – would do well to remember.

An editorial by Graham J Noble

 

97 Responses to "Obama Birth Certificate Gets a Curious Mention in Al Sharpton Speech"

  1. Montana   December 10, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    The Birthers/ Teabaggers have no evidence that would stand up in a court of law in the United States. To all the Birthers in internet land, its upon you to prove to all of us (the majority) that what you are saying is true. Take it to court you bunch of cowards!

    Let me be clear none of these Birther/ Teabaggers dullards have taken there “Birther Documents of facts, more like lies” and none have won a case in the “U.S. Courts”, maybe in their simple minds (if they have any) but not in our “U.S. Courts”, so unless Birthers/ Teabaggers, whatever you want to be called, win a court case, we will continue to see as dullards, liars or racist or maybe all three. Deal with the real truth baby!

    To all the Teabaggers / Birthers/ Chicken Littles that keep saying that the sky is falling, and the Unites States will fail, never count against the United States of America, we are coming back and you and your losers are wrong!

    Reply
    • Graham Noble   December 10, 2013 at 5:42 pm

      Actually, it was up to the President to prove he was a natural born citizen before he was even eligible to run for President, which he didn’t (that is a fact, by the way; even he and his aides admit that he didn’t find his birth certificate until after he became President).

      Therefore, it is irrelevant that he was or was not born in Hawaii; he was not eligible to run for President, since he did not – at that time – satisfy the requirements.

      Take your hatred an insults somewhere else. You should remember not to stray from Media Matters in the future.

      Reply
  2. Frank   August 7, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    The Birth Certificate is fake. If ANYONE just looks at all the evaluations from almost every expert that has looked at it.

    The bigger question is why did ALL THE MEDIA immediately accept it as authentic and never bring it up again unless to mock people that think it is fake.

    Another coincidence is that within 24 hours after the release, they kill Bin laden and all news shifts to that. Very convenient. Anyone who has looked at that death will also understand that the killing of Bin Laden is also fake.

    WAKE UP DUMMIES. YOU ARE ALL BEING DUPED BY YOUR TRUSTED MEDIA.

    THEY ARE ALL IN THE BAG

    Reply
    • bob   August 8, 2013 at 9:55 am

      No expert has ever evaluated President Obama’s birth certificate (long or short form). A few quacks have proclaimed themselves experts and played around with the digital images of those birth certificates. Big difference.

      Meanwhile, the State of Hawaii — the entity authorized to speak about the birth certificates’ authenticity — has repeatedly and expressly said President Obama was born in Hawaii.

      But please continue to insist that President Obama’s birth certificate and bin Laden’s death were faked by some vast conspiracy, yet still not understand why you are mocked for holding such ridiculous beliefs.

      Reply
  3. GVA   August 6, 2013 at 8:43 am

    Again, just because a judge here or there makes a statement about natural-born citizenship in dismissing a case doesn’t mean much. This is a constitutional issue that should be fully hashed out in front of the Supreme Court. You claim that there is no dispute on the meaning of natural-born citizenship, which is a ludicrous claim on its face. Thomas Jefferson would surely disagree with you. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in December 1783 regarding British subjects and U.S. citizens:

    “There is no middle character–every man must be the one or the other of these.”

    Obama’s 2008 campaign claimed that Obama was both a U.S. citizen and a British citizen from birth to two years old, and then both a U.S. citizen and a Kenyan citizen from two years old to twenty-one years old.

    According to Thomas Jefferson, Obama could not have been both a “citizen” and an “alien” at the same time. Thomas Jefferson would have said that Obama was not a “natural born citizen”, not eligible to be the president under the Constitution. Unfortunately, Thomas Jefferson is not a judge in Indiana.

    Reply
  4. GVA   August 1, 2013 at 12:48 pm

    (I originally submitted a longer reply that contained a few URLs, but I don’t see it here, so I’ll make it short without any URLs.)

    Rawle was neither a Framer nor a Founding Father. He is not authoritative. His “therefore” statement is a flimsy extension from his preceding sentence about how one born a citizen in a state is also born a U.S. citizen.

    THOMAS JEFFERSON wrote that there is “NO MIDDLE CHARACTER” between an American citizen and a British subject, and he applied this rule to both ADULTS AND CHILDREN.

    Obama’s father was a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth.

    Thomas Jefferson would have called Obama an “alien”, not a U.S. citizen, regardless of native birth or not.

    Obama is not a natural-born citizen. He is not, and has never been, eligible for the office of the president.

    Reply
    • cehughes   August 1, 2013 at 1:29 pm

      Justice Oliver Ellsworth was a Framer.

      He wrote in the case of Isaac Williams.

      “The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution.”

      Under the Common Law anyone born in a colony or State was a natural born citizen/subject.

      James Madison was a Framer.

      “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”

      Reply
      • GVA   August 1, 2013 at 1:53 pm

        James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, wrote how Common Law ceased to have any authority here since the Declaration of Independence:

        “That the Constitution is predicated on the existence of the Common Law cannot be questioned; because it borrows therefrom terms which must be explained by Com: Law authorities: but this no more implies a general adoption or recognition of it, than the use of terms embracing articles of the Civil Law would carry such an implication. . . . If the Common Law has been called our birthright, it has been done with little regard to any precise meaning. It could have been no more our birthright than the Statute law of England, or than the English Constitution itself. . . . As men our birthright was from a much higher source than the common or any other human law and of much greater extent than is imparted or admitted by the common law. And as far as it might belong to us as British subjects it must with its correlative obligations have expired when we ceased to be such.” (James Madison to Peter S. Duponceau, August, 1824)

        Common Law never spoke of “natural-born citizens”, but only of “natural-born subjects”. Two different things. The framers didn’t even borrow “natural born Citizen” from Common Law. You have to look at the law of nations for that. James Madison acknowledged that “the law of the land” was derived from “the law of Nations”, which contains some open questions:

        “The first instructions were no otherwise legal than as they were in pursuance of the law of Nations, & consequently in execution of the law of the land.” (James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, April 2, 1798)

        Your quote from James Madison in the case of William L. Smith is taken out of context. Madison concluded, “Mr. SMITH being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society, with respect to the question of independence and change of Government”, unless he “forfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act”. Since Mr. Smith’s parents were dead at the time of the change in government, Mr. Smith founded his claim upon “his ancestors”, who replaced the authority of his deceased parents. Therefore, James Madison concluded that the criterion of “place” was satisfied such that Mr. Smith’s ancestors became American citizens upon the Declaration of Independence, and by the “ties of nature”, Mr. Smith also became an American citizen through the transition of government, even though he was not living in the “place”, but was a minor under the authority of his family.

        I like how you keep ignoring the explicit, simple statements from Thomas Jefferson regarding how there is “no middle character” between a British subject and a U.S. citizen. Thomas Jefferson explicitly said that you are either one or the other. I can quote it for you if you would like.

        Reply
  5. GVA   August 1, 2013 at 10:56 am

    The birth-certificate issue is important, but what is most important is the fact that Obama’s father was not a citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. Obama’s own campaign claimed that Obama was both a U.S. citizen and a British subject from birth to two years old, and then both a U.S. citizen and Kenyan citizen from two years old to twenty-one years old. Thomas Jefferson wrote that there is “no middle character” between a U.S. citizen and a British subject. The president must be a “natural born citizen”, naturally a U.S. citizen and only a U.S. citizen from birth onward. The eligibility issue is fundamentally a constitutional issue. Is Obama a natural-born citizen? No. He is therefore ineligible for office.

    Reply
    • cehughes   August 1, 2013 at 11:22 am

      Sorry you are wrong.

      William Rawle – ““Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “ A View of the Constitution of the United States” 1825.

      Rawle was appointed by President Washington to be the first United States District Attorney for Pennsylvania.

      Justice Scalia has cited Rawle’s work in Supreme Court cases

      Reply
      • GVA   August 1, 2013 at 11:51 am

        Rawle was neither a Framer nor a Founding Father, and he had nothing to do with the inclusion of the constitutional requirement that the President be a “natural born Citizen”. Rawle is not authoritative and his reasoning on natural-born citizenship is very flawed. Rawle’s claim that “[t]herefore every person born within the United States . . . is a natural born citizen” is only based on the preceding sentence, which simply states that those who are born citizens of the states are also born U.S. citizens. That is no foundation for his claim that one is born a natural-born citizen “whether the parents are citizens or aliens” merely by being “born within the United States”. Rawle’s claim is not founded on what the Framers or the authorities on the law of nations wrote or said. His statement is very flimsy and is not authoritative. What is authoritative is what Thomas Jefferson wrote.

        THOMAS JEFFERSON wrote that there is “NO MIDDLE CHARACTER” between an American citizen and a British subject, and he applied this rule to both ADULTS AND CHILDREN ( http://tinyurl.com/8zvmgy ).

        Obama’s 2008 campaign claimed that Obama was both a British subject and a U.S. citizen at birth ( http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html , http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html ). Note that the original webpages do not work anymore.

        The idea that a citizen, whether natural-born or naturalized, could simultaneously be a citizen of another sovereignty was an oxymoron to the framers and founding fathers.

        Obama is not a natural-born citizen. He is not, and has never been, eligible for the office of the president.

        Reply
    • bob   August 1, 2013 at 11:00 pm

      Numerous court have expressly rejected the claim that natural-born citizenship requires two citizen parents. I know that you’ll disagree with these rulings, but the rulings of real judges in real cases carries more weight than some anonymous person on the Internet.

      Reply
      • GVA   August 2, 2013 at 8:13 am

        You don’t have your facts straight. This issue has not been ruled on by the Supreme Court or any lower court. Eligibility cases, of which a minority have tried to get somewhere on the constitutional natural-born citizenship issue, have been dismissed on lack of standing, the political question doctrine, etc. The courts aren’t touching the eligibility issue. Just because a judge here or there makes a statement about natural-born citizenship in dismissing a case doesn’t mean much. Shouldn’t the Supreme Court hear the sides and offer an opinion? (Denying appeals does not count as offering an opinion. That is a common misunderstanding.)

        Does Thomas Jefferson carry enough weight? In December 1783, Jefferson wrote that there is “no middle character” between a British subject and a U.S. citizen:

        “There is no middle character–every man must be the one or the other of these.”

        Surely, Jefferson would have said the same about “every woman”, “every boy”, and “every girl”, just as he would have said that there is “no middle character” between a U.S. citizen and a citizen of any other sovereignty, for he also wrote this simple statement:

        “An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.”

        Obama was born of an American mother and a Kenyan father, a British subject at the time, so Obama’s 2008 campaign claimed that Obama was both a U.S. citizen and a British citizen from birth to two years old, and then both a U.S. citizen and a Kenyan citizen from two years old to twenty-one years old.

        This so-called state of dual citizenship, of dual allegiance, would be an oxymoron to the framers and founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson and the others would be very confused as to how a person could be both a “citizen” and an “alien” when a person “must be the one or the other of these”. If we are to take Obama at his word, through his 2008 campaign, that he indeed had foreign citizenship, then I must conclude that he was not a “natural born Citizen” as required of the president by the Constitution. Obama is ineligible for office.

        Reply
        • bob   August 6, 2013 at 7:21 am

          You don’t have your facts straight: Numerous courts have expressly dismissed cases because birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship. Ankeny v, Governor of Indiana is the leading case, but there have been many others.

          And, no, it isn’t the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to respond to every legal question; its job is to resolve disputed points of law, and there’s no dispute in the courts about any of this nonsense.

          Reply
  6. Bob   July 31, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    If Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth certificate is authentic, why did he spend literally millions of dollars for his attorney’s to block court investigations into his eligibility? All it would take is to simply hand over a stamped paper copy and be done with it. For $10 I got a beautifully detailed full copy of my original birth certificate, complete with raised state seal. It came in the mail in a couple of weeks. Isn’t that easier than paying attorneys millions to fight court battles, making every defense on technicalities of the legal “standing” of the plaintiffs, rather than simply to provide authentication of the documents in question?

    Reply
    • Steve   July 31, 2013 at 7:50 pm

      How do you figure he spent millions fighting these lawsuits? He wasn’t the defendant in some of them. In others, the birth certificate wouldn’t have settled anything.
      And he did release his birth certificate. Twice.
      That you choose not to accept that is not his problem.

      Reply
    • cehughes   July 31, 2013 at 9:21 pm

      Can you provide any documentation to your claims that President Obama has spent anywhere near what you claim he spent?

      Reply
    • Bob Weber   August 6, 2013 at 1:41 pm

      Poor Baby! Obama didn’t “spend millions to block court investigations”. Courts don’t do investigations – you bring your evidence to court. Obama filed simple, inexpensive motions for dismissal in the few suits in which he was named as a defendant; he won because birfers failed to submit any evidence and failed to state a legal claim that the court could act on.

      In certain administrative courts where his eligibility was challenged, birfers again failed to provide any evidence, and their “two citizen parents” arguments were summarily rejected. In one case, birfers “lost to an empty chair” – No legal representative for Obama showed up, and the birfers still lost. Get a life.

      Reply
  7. Bob   July 31, 2013 at 6:22 pm

    Why does Obama’s Selective Service card have only a 2 digit date stamp that is off center instead of the USPS regulation and required 4 digit stamp? It says “80” instead of “1980”. The law enforcement investigation found that if you take a 2008 date stamp, cut it in half, turn it upside down and stuff back into the Pica stamp holder, it comes out looking exactly like Obama’s. Since the “8” is upside down, the slightly wider bottom loop would now make it look “upside down”. Unless you slice a tad off the top to disguise the fact. Just like on Obama’s. The United States Post Office has never used nor authorized any 2 digit date stamps. To forge a federal document such as the selective service is a felony which also makes the forger ineligible to hold any public office.

    Reply
    • cehughes   July 31, 2013 at 9:19 pm

      For several reasons – It is a poor quality copy and there was poor ink transfer from the stamp to the paper. Look at the word “HONOLULU” in the stamp – it is missing the first “O” and the second “L”.

      Now it’s your turn to answer some questions:

      Where did the forger get a 1980s style – Honolulu Makiki Station Post Office stamp?

      Why did the Bush Administration verify the that Senator Obama registered for the Selective Service in 1980?

      Where did the forger get the 10 digit DLN (printed on the card) which can be shown was issued in 1980?

      Where did the forger get the 10 digit Selective Service Number (issued to President Obama) that can be shown was issued in 1980?

      How did the forger get this information into the Selective Service Administration’s database and microfilm rolls?

      Reply
    • bob   August 1, 2013 at 12:37 am

      Jeffrey Coffman contacted the Selective Service, which told him that President Obama was duly registered: http://www.scribd.com/doc/118769858/Affidavit-DHS-Special-Agent-ret-Stephen-Coffman-Obama-Selective-Service-Registration-Forged-1-2-2013

      So we can add the SSS to the birther lore of government agencies that are in on the vast conspiracy.

      Reply
  8. Robert Christopher Laity   July 31, 2013 at 4:41 am

    I direct you to an editorial that I wrote in 2010 in the Post and Email. It is called “There is NO ‘President’ Obama”:
    http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-no-president-obama/

    You can also view it under “El Usurpator”

    Obama is a fraud who has usurped the Presidency during time of war. That makes Obama a Spy under the Uniform Code Of Military Justice at Section 906,Article 106. As a Usurper, Obama has absolutely no authority to be in any place during time of war wherein the conduct of said war is engaged in. Obama has no legitimate “Need to Know” our nations secrets.

    As a Usurper, Obama need NOT be impeached in order to effect his removal from the Oval Office. Obama has never been the Sitting President and does not therefore have ANY executive immunity or authority. Obama can be arrested on a warrant and tried in the U.S. District Court in D.C. Obama is also subject to Military Court-Martial as a Spy.

    Obama is a fraud, traitor, spy and criminal deviant. His faux “administration” is a RICO Cabal.
    Also see: !8USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381

    Obama is NOT the bona-fide President. he was not legally elected and has NO legal authority to act as President. His impotent “Presidential” acts and Executive orders ,under color of legal authority, are NULL and VOID.

    “A sitting President is NOT Immune from acts committed before he took office”-Clinton v Jones, US Supreme Court

    Reply
    • bob   July 31, 2013 at 9:09 am

      The UCMJ applies only to people in the military. President Obama (and certainly citizen Obama) is not a member of the military.

      And President Obama is the president: He received a majority of the votes of Electoral College, which were certified by the U.S. Congress. Whatever Laity (a birther who has lost in court on these issues) thinks does not change this reality.

      Reply
  9. Robert Christopher Laity   July 31, 2013 at 4:22 am

    Obama has never been the Bona-fide President. Obama is not a “Natural-Born Citizen”.
    People do not realize that being born in the United States is only PART of the standard which defines who a “Natural-Born Citizen” is.

    To be a “Natural Born Citizen” one must not only be born in the United States one must also be born of Parents who are both citizens themselves.

    A U.S. Birth Certificate alone does not qualify Obama. His Father was a foreigner at the time Junior was born. Senior was a British Subject.

    It is incontrovertible that the founders wanted ONLY a “Natural-Born Citizen” to be President. The founders understood that a “Natural-Born Citizen” is “One that is born in a country of Parents who are citizens”.

    Being born of the Soil (Jus Soli) IN ADDITION TO 100% of American Blood (Jus Sanquinis). A Natural-Born “Citizen” is the highest level of American. THAT is the standard that a President and Vice-President MUST meet.

    Reply
    • bob   July 31, 2013 at 9:12 am

      As Laity is undoubtedly aware, numerous courts have expressly rejected this argument, and have ruled birth within the United States (without regard to a person’s parents’ citizenship) is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.

      That Laity disagrees with these rulings do not change this legal reality.

      Reply
  10. Kevin   July 30, 2013 at 4:17 pm

    Birther claims that Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud do not stand up to scrutiny. His authentic document was scanned on a Xerox 7655 WorkCenter to PDF, it was opened with Preview on a Mac, and then saved. Everything the birthers say is forgery, is just normal processing with these simple steps.

    Reply
    • therak   July 31, 2013 at 1:00 pm

      FALSE…. no EVIDENCE the document was scanned by Xerox 7655 in the metadata.

      And people need to understand that whenever you scan a document… the company providing the scanner wants to implant that scanner information into the metadata of a document as a form of advertising and promoting the product among a myriad of other reasons.

      I’ve seen many make the point that the Xerox was used because we know that’s what the White House uses due to the fact that it is in the metadata of the tax forms. This is true. So WHY IS IT NOT IN THE METADATA FOR THE BIRTH CERT. PDF?

      Answer for those following along. The Birth cert. PDF is MANUFACTURED… NEVER AN ACTUAL DOCUMENT THAT WAS SCANNED.

      Reply
      • cehughes   July 31, 2013 at 3:29 pm

        “WHY IS IT NOT IN THE METADATA FOR THE BIRTH CERT. PDF?”

        Because after it was scanned on the Xerox WorkCentre, it was opened in Preview and Saved as a PDF. This wipes out the previous metadata and writes in the metadata from {review.

        Want proof?

        Open the President’s 2010 tax return PDF (let’s call that the Tax PDF) in the Adobe Reader.

        Now right click anywhere on the document and select “Document Properties”

        You should see the following metadata:

        Created: 4/15/2011 6:08:17 PM
        Modified: 4/18/2011 4:07:56 PM (this will change when you save it to your computer)

        Application: Xerox WorkCentre 7655
        PDF Producer: Xerox WorkCentre 7655
        File Size: 1.79 MB (1,876,300 Bytes)
        Page SIze: 8.50 x 11.00 in
        Tagged PDF: No
        Number of Pages: 59
        Fast Web View: No

        Now open Tax PDF on a Mac computer in Preview and select File>Print>Save as PDF.

        The new PDF (let’s call that Preview Tax PDF) will have the following metadata

        Created: (this will change to the date you save it to your computer)
        Modified: (this will change to the date you save it to your computer)

        Application: Preview
        PDF Producer: Mac OS X 10.x.x.Quartz PDF Context
        PDF Version: 1.3 (Acrobat 4.x)
        File Size: 7.98 MB (8,364,966 Bytes)
        Page SIze: 8.50 x 11.00 in
        Tagged PDF: No
        Number of Pages: 59
        Fast Web View: No

        The Tax PDF in Illustrator has 59 8-bit layers (one for each page) and multiple 1-bit layers. The 1-bit layers were filtered with JBIG2Decode. There is no clipping mask along the border in the PDF.

        The Preview Tax PDF also has 59 8-bit layers and multiple 1-bit layers. The 1-bit layers were filtered with FlateDecode. There is a clipping mask along the border in the PDF.

        Preview obscures the previous metadata, however the bloggers who did these tests were able to find a residual embedded comment that tracks back to the Xerox machine. That is what led them to the Xerox WorkCentre in the first place.

        Reply
  11. Frank Bolivar   July 30, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    Digital manipulation is not necessarily a sign of forgery. Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.

    Please, the pdf is completely irrelevant. It can have eleventy-seventy layers and clip masks and many other things, and that says nothing as to whether the original document is a forgery.

    What has been materially altered with intent to deceive? According to verification by HI DOH of the data contained in the vital records file, nothing. The data is all that matters. The document could be written on toilet paper in Crayon, and as long as it contains the seal and the signature of the registrar, that’s all that’s required.

    If you have proof of a birth elsewhere than HI, let’s see it. Otherwise this is all birther folly.

    Reply
  12. wonderer22   July 30, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    “…it is actually not true that Obama’s birth certificate was released in 2008.”
    __

    I don’t understand. Which part of it is “actually not true”? Are you saying that he didn’t release anything or that what he released was not his birth certificate?

    He certainly released something — he posted a photo of it online, and it was photographed by FactCheck.

    And while it was claimed by birthers at the time that a “Certification of Live Birth” was not actually a birth certificate, it didn’t take long to discover that in fact the “Certification of Live Birth” was precisely what Hawaii had been offering as its sole form of birth certificate since about 2001.

    And since it bears a seal and signature stamp, it is a self-authenticating document under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. And, furthermore, the information it bears corresponds with that on both the long-form and the multiple letters of verification, all of which are also official state documents.

    Tell us again what makes you doubt that document?

    Reply
  13. Anonymous   July 30, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    Test

    Reply
  14. Jason   July 30, 2013 at 7:41 am

    Why are people not rising up and doing something about this? The Obama birth certificate is faker than my wife’s boobs!

    Reply
  15. SoSoTorpedo (@SoSoTorpedo)   July 29, 2013 at 11:54 pm

    “The best argument that the birthers have is the lengths to which Obama, his campaign team and, later, his administration appeared to go to stall the release of his birth certificate – including the initial claim by the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital that they could not release the document”.

    You seem to forget, In response to early birther claims, (then) Senator Obama released his offcial birth certificate way back in June, 2008. He was the first Presidential candidate ever to do so. Hardly stalling.

    ‘What ‘initial claim’? Just like in the UK, US Hospitals don’t issue birth certificates (except for ‘souvenir’ types printed with storks/bunnies etc that have no legal value). The State does. So the maternity hospital Obama was born in would never/could never have stated that they could not ‘release the document’.

    Reply
    • Graham Noble   July 30, 2013 at 1:43 am

      Firstly, it is actually not true that Obama’s birth certificate was released in 2008. If you have a legitimate source that proves otherwise, I would be very grateful if you would forward it to me.

      Secondly, hospitals do issue birth certificates. In fact, the editor of Newsweek – whilst attempting to debunk the ‘birther’ theory (started by the Clinton campaign, I would remind you) – said “The Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.”

      So, by your own standards, he was lying, since you say that hospitals do not issue birth certificates. In fact, he was lying, as no such legitimate birth certificate had been posted online at that time.

      I’m completely open-minded about the issue: I believe there is legitimate doubt, as to the President’s birthplace, but no-one has yet provided conclusive evidence that he was not born in Hawaii.

      Reply
      • cehughes   July 30, 2013 at 6:22 am

        Yes, his birth certificate was released in 2008.

        http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

        There are numerous examples of similar looking Hawaiian birth certificates on the Internet. They not surprisingly look very similar to President Obama’s.

        Reply
      • SoSoTorpedo (@SoSoTorpedo)   July 30, 2013 at 9:06 am

        A scan of Senator Obama’s birth certificate was posted on the Obama campaign’s ‘Fight The Smears’ website in June 2008 and this was widely reported. Indeed, birthers were claiming it was a forgery within hours. Just put ‘Obama Birth Certificate Fight The Smears’ into Google and you’ll find gazillions of birthers yelling ‘forgery’. Judging by your tone I take it you feel birthers are a ‘reliable source’ so their contemporaneous written shreiking and wailing should be acceptable evidence that the document was indeed posted on the Fight The Smears website (which no longer exists). Just to help you out, here is one example from a birther site in early June, 2008. Have a read through the comments. Many of them refer to various imagined ‘failings’ of the (then) Senator’s birth certificate;

        http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/obama-natural-born-citizen-obamas-birth-certificate-obama-born-in-kenya-is-obama-eligible-to-be-president/

        The campaign also made it (the hard copy) available for inspection at the headquarters in Chicago.. Representatives from Fact Check went and took numerous photos of it.

        Parse away all you like at what the ‘editor of Newsweek’ said, and misrepresent what I said all you like; it’s only your own time you are wasting. Obama’s birth certificate was issued by the Dept of Health in Hawaii, which is the only body responsible for issuing legally valid birth certificates in the State.

        Reply
        • sdarlene   July 31, 2013 at 6:42 pm

          There is the documents and information you can see on DR Orly Taitz website. She has filed paper work with the courts in ref: to a investigation that was done on the birth certificate.

          Reply
  16. therak   July 29, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    New Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Proof in the Layers

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/new_obama_birth_certificate_forgery_proof_in_the_layers.html

    Reply
    • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 9:47 pm

      Mara Zebest?

      Here what MZebest said in July, 2008 about then-Senator Obama

      “LOL! It’s what I live for… my goal to make him a mockery of the very crowd he seeks for adulation.”

      http://blog.pumapac.org/2008/07/25/cupcake-or-turnips/

      So did she finally get her chance? How did her goal affect her analysis? If you were been investigated would you want the investigator to be someone out to make you a “mockery”?

      Reply
      • therak   July 30, 2013 at 8:42 pm

        Facts are still facts… so instead of accusing someone irrelevant because they accurately state an idea that opposes your view doesn’t discount the facts in the report.

        Reply
        • therak   July 30, 2013 at 10:04 pm

          Try sticking to the information in the report… it happens to be extremely accurate and nails the problems with the PDF… down to the code as the article suggests.

          The fact that many posting on your side of the argument are paid bloggers sitting in the basement could make the case that you are a mockery with a bias too. But I prefer to go by the arguments you present. Unfortunately… none of the arguments you present makes any sense when applying them to the facts of the BC PDF file.

          Reply
          • bob   July 31, 2013 at 12:56 am

            What is the proof that anyone is a paid blogger (in the basement)?

        • cehughes   July 31, 2013 at 9:06 am

          This birther also said the registrar stamp has a misspelling in it – “TXE” but looking at the AP coy of the LFBC, it can be seen that the stamp actually reads “THE”.

          She also said that MRC only has three layers (background, mask and color) but the guy who helped develop it said that was not true. And he also said that you could have a background layer with multiple mask layers and no color layers at all.

          Reply
          • therak   July 31, 2013 at 12:55 pm

            Your portrayal is INCORRECT… she said that MRC “TYPICALLY” has only three layers…. which is TRUE… in which there is an 8-bit layer that gives the 1-bit layer its color… so if the MRC is going to provide more than a single 1-bit layer (and produces multiple 1-bit layers)… then there will also be a corresponding 8-bit layer to give the 1-bit layer its color. Queiroz (the guy that developed MRC) confirmed that information. So again… what in the last report link provided is wrong?

            Stick to the facts and try quoting more accurately.

          • cehughes   July 31, 2013 at 3:46 pm

            “in which there is an 8-bit layer that gives the 1-bit layer its color”

            Both you and Mara are wrong. MRC standard does not have to produce an 8-bit foreground (color) layer, this has been confirmed by Professor de Queiroz.

            Don’t believe me – e-mail him and ask him.

          • therak   August 1, 2013 at 8:55 am

            ANOTHER FAIL: I have emailed Queiroz to ask… and his report proves the point as well.

            But since you keep trying to change the subject… let me try asking again. Provide the recipe, INCLUDING THE SOFTWARE used along the way which also INCLUDES THE SETTINGS for ALL dialog boxes along the way.

            If you’re soooo confident you’re right… then prove me wrong with a verifiable recipe that is REPEATABLE. For everyone to verify with the same software and scanning equippment and applying ALL THE SETTINGS IN YOUR RECIPE FOR ALL DIALOG BOXES ENCOUNTERED.

  17. davidfarrard   July 29, 2013 at 9:27 pm

    This issue has nothing to do with the color of Obama’s skin. In fact, Obama wasn’t the only, nor was he even the first, 2008 presidential candidate to be sued in federal court over his Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen qualifications. Those dubious honors belong to John McCain.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    Reply
  18. Steve   July 29, 2013 at 9:17 pm

    There’s no credible evidence that the President was born anywhere other than Hawaii and any scenario where he could have been born somewhere else and have a birth certificate listing his place of birth in Hawaii is rather far-fetched.

    Reply
    • Just the Facts   July 29, 2013 at 9:26 pm

      I think you Mis-spoke…. there is no “credible evidence” he WAS born in Hawaii!

      Reply
      • Mitch   July 30, 2013 at 9:34 am

        Are you kidding? The state of Hawaii Department of Health officials have said numerous times that he was. And NO, they have no reason to lie. Birthers lack critical thinking skill.

        Reply
  19. Just the Facts   July 29, 2013 at 8:29 pm

    ” cehughes.” Seems rather desperate to respond to Each and every post,
    Are you getting concerned that the Truth will come out or is it just a economic
    thing where the disinformation agency you work for pays by the post?

    Reply
    • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 9:01 pm

      Any chance you will provide us with a link to Hayes’ report? Or is that made up too?

      BTW, I value the true how about you?

      Reply
      • Just the Facts   July 29, 2013 at 9:23 pm

        Nothing made up about it, I guess you ARE paid by the Post…..

        Here is a nice article with many links, and there is always Google… you know the SEARCH ENGINE…….
        http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/07/08/forensic-findings-on-obamas-birth-certificate-a-100-percent-forgery-no-doubt-about-it/

        Reply
        • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 10:07 pm

          The author of the Tribune piece is a correspondent for Carl Gallups.

          Reply
          • Just the Facts   July 29, 2013 at 10:26 pm

            Very sleazy attempt to discredit a long distinguished journalistic career
            far in excess of a few articles picked up by Mr. Gallups.

            Imagine That! a Journalist who actually researches instead of getting only soundbites from Carney!

            Must Smear those!

            What is the going rate per post these days?

          • cehughes   July 31, 2013 at 9:09 am

            If calling Dr. Vouto a correspondent for Carl Gallups is smear than Carl Gallups is the one who smeared Dr. Vuoto.

            “Dr. Grace Vuoto is a regular correspondent on Freedom Friday with Carl Gallups.”

            http://ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/05/bombshell-in-benghazi-e-mails-grace.html

  20. Just the Facts   July 29, 2013 at 7:55 pm

    Reed Hayes, a certified document analyst, has provided an affidavit stating the document is a 100 percent forgery. Hayes has been used as expert witness by the Perkins Coie law firm, the same law firm Obama used to defend himself in a number of eligibility cases.
    He is also a registered Democrat whose business is located in Hawaii.
    “There’s something wrong with this.” A detailed 40-page report of his findings:
    He stated, “[I]t is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources. In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated.”

    Reply
    • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 8:06 pm

      Got a link to his “40” page report?

      Reply
    • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 8:12 pm

      BTW, “Hayes has been used as expert witness by the Perkins Coie law firm, the same law firm Obama used to defend himself in a number of eligibility cases.”

      There is no proof of this, please document it.

      Reply
      • therak   July 30, 2013 at 10:08 pm

        http://reedwrite.com/?page_id=11

        Reply
        • bob   July 31, 2013 at 12:55 am

          Reed’s CV indicates that he was once retained by an attorney who worked for Perkins Coie in the 90s. There is no indication that Reed actually testified in this one case that was litigated over 15 years ago. Nor is there any indication in what subject Reed provided an opinion, and his primary specialty appears to be handwriting analysis, which is of dubious relevance (at best) to electronic document forensic analysis.

          Reply
  21. mauser98   July 29, 2013 at 7:52 pm

    Bathhouse Barry failed E-Verify
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/67700023/Obama-Fails-E-Verify-Proof-He-Stole-SSN

    Reply
    • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 8:10 pm

      President Obama’s SSN was made public in 2009, e-verify wasn’t run until 2011.

      If your SSN was released to the public would you have the SSA flag it in their system?

      Reply
  22. John Henderson   July 29, 2013 at 7:48 pm

    Here’s a link to 26 corroborations for Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
    http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/96756764
    There is a reason for 201 civil suits challenging Obama’s eligibility all failing and for not one second of congressional hearing time in five years ever looking into this issue.

    Reply
  23. therak   July 29, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    The evidence to explain the birth certificate as being fraudulent is very clear (not sketchy). Check out Sheriff Arpaio’s press conference on the topic here:



    Or a very solid article which contains links to reports explaining the problems with the layers seen in the birth certificate found here:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/new_obama_birth_certificate_forgery_proof_in_the_layers.html

    Reply
  24. cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 7:16 pm

    “Such announcements, however, can easily be placed in any newspaper without verification.”

    This is also not true. These particular announcements came directly from the Hawaii Department of Health. They are not the type placed by family members.

    Reply
    • Graham Noble   July 29, 2013 at 8:15 pm

      I am open to verifiable sources, regardless of which argument they support. Please provide proof of your statement. Thank you.

      Reply
      • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 8:59 pm

        “Could Obama’s 1961 birth announcement in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin be a fake? Some conspiracy theorists say yes. Longtime Honolulu newspaper reporter Dan Nakaso says no.”

        “It’s not possible,” Nakaso said. “Under the system that existed back then, there was no avenue for people to submit information that way. … The information came directly from the state Department of Health.”

        http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/25/birthers.obama.hawaii/index.html

        Reply
  25. cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 7:05 pm

    “On the one hand, it has been claimed that the document – which has only ever been made available in electronic format ”

    Not true NBC newswoman Savannah Guthrie reported on holding the BC and she even took two photos of it. They were later posted online to her Lockerz account.

    Reply
  26. cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    The birth certificate is not a forgery. Real computer experts have explained the layers as being normal for scanning.

    “The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”. Dr. Neal Krawetz

    “In summary I can only say I see much stronger signs of common MRC algorithmic processing of the image rather than some intentional manipulation.”. Professor Richardo
    de Queiroz

    And recently a blogger actually proved that certain Xerox scanner/copiers will produce the same effects.

    Reply
    • therak   July 29, 2013 at 7:30 pm

      Queiroz uses the MRC excuse which is NOT applicable to Obama’s birth certificate. MRC uses 8-bit layers to give a 1-bit layer its color. There is no evidence that this exists in Obama’s file. The layers in Obama’s file are PURELY FABRICATED MANIPULATION. They are NOT A RESULT OF ANY COMPUTER PROCESSES. Both Adaptive optimization or MRC optimization are NOT APPLICABLE as EXCUSES.

      FORGERY – 1000%

      Reply
      • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 7:43 pm

        The White House PDF consists of one 8-bit layer and seven 1-bit text masks or layers. The 8-bit layer is the green background layer. It is at a lower resolution than the text layers. This is exactly what MRC does.

        Reply
        • therak   July 29, 2013 at 8:12 pm

          There are Eight 1-bit layers and if MRC was applied first there would be a warning dialog box that explains the layers are being reinterpreted when the file is opening in Illustrator. THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN… NO MRC.

          Second… if MRC was applied there would be 9 8-bit layers… one for the background and an 8-bit layer to accompany each 1-bit layer to provide the color for those 1-bit layers. BUT Obama’s 1-bit layers get the color from a layer FILL (NOT from an 8-bit layer that accompanies the layer to provide color).

          So how does that happen? BY MANIPULATION… MRC IS NOT APPLICABLE.

          Reply
          • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 8:30 pm

            “Second… if MRC was applied there would be 9 8-bit layers… one for the background and an 8-bit layer to accompany each 1-bit layer to provide the color for those 1-bit layers. ”

            This is simply not true. MRC can have one 8-bit layer and multiple 1-bit text layers and no color layers. Each with a different grayscale value, just like we see in the White House PDF. And there is no warning message in Illustrator. Professor de Queiroz has confirmed that and he is one of the developers of the MRC standard.

            BTW, President Obama’s 2010 tax return has one 8-bit layer and multiple 1-bit layers on each page. It was created on a Xerox WorkCentre 7655 scanner/copier. A blogger just recently proved that such scanner creates the same type of layers when he scanned a printout of the lfbc pdf.

            Here’s the website:

            http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/potential-xerox-work-centre-7655/

    • therak   July 29, 2013 at 8:28 pm

      The Xerox excuse is another attempt to throw everything possible up against a wall to see what will stick.

      I notice when all these theories to EXPLAIN THE MULTITUDES of forgery tell tale signs are offered… not only do they fail to explain the nomalies… but the people who throw out the EXCUSE NEVER seem to offer a VERIFIABLE and REPEATABLE recipe of settings and software for everyone to verify the excuse is valid.

      Give me the recipe. Explain not only the Xerox Workcentre 7655 model… but what software and what SETTINGS to achieve ALL THE NOMALIES seen in the birth certificate. I notice the explanation tries to say a feature called “Edge Erase” causes the clipping mask that hides information (to explain that anomalie). Uh… hate to break it to you… but “Edge Erase” Deletes (OR CROPS) information… not HIDE it… thus that excuse doesn’t work.

      So tell me what SETTINGS achieves the magical fabricated ANOMALIES seen in Obama’s birth certificate? Please list every setting and software used so I can duplicate it as well as everyone else… VERIFIABLE RECIPE. Where is it?

      Reply
      • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 8:50 pm

        Here is what one blogger did.

        1) Printed a copy of the White House LFBC PDF.

        2) Scan the document to e-mail on a Xerox WorkCentre 7655 (Xerox uses MRC Compression).

        3) Opened the new PDF in Illustrator and recorded the one 8-bit layer and four 1-bit layers.

        4) Opened the PDF in Preview on a Mac. Selected “Save as PDF”.

        5) Opened this new document in Illustrator and observed the one 8-bit layer and four 1-bit layers.

        6) Documented the various changes made by the different software. For example, the PDF created by the Xerox was based on Version1.5but saving this PDF in Preview changed it to Version 1.3. In the Version 1.5 PDF the 8-bit layers were filtered by “FlateDecode/DCTDecode” and the 1-bit layers by “JBIG2Decode”. In the Preview version however the 8-bit are filtered by “DCTDecode” and the 1-bit by “FlateDecode”

        You can document this change by goggling “President Obama 2010 tax return”. Go to the White House website version and open it in Illustrator and in WordPad. then Open it on a Mac and open it in Preview then select “File/Print/Save as PDF”. Rename the new PDF and open it in both Illustrator and WordPad.

        BTW, the Xerox WorkCentres use MRC compression.

        Reply
        • therak   July 29, 2013 at 9:01 pm

          I’ve seen this post before… it is NOT a recipe of settings… just a lot of BS that deflects the truth.

          A recipe like go to File > Import… and choose such and such settings… using such and such software. And don’t forget to throw in some dumb excuse as to why PREVIEW software was used.

          And you do not understand what you’re saying about MRC either. You mentioned there are no color layers… each 1-bit with a different grayscale value. Your ignorance is showing. The layers do not display any grayscale colors… all have a greenish color (not grayscale)… and that kind of color would be supplied from an 8-bit layer if it were MRC… Which IT IS NOT.

          The color is a color fill contained on the 1-bit layer itself. That happens from manipulation. Not from a Xerox machine, nor from Adaptive optimization, nor from MRC optimization.

          Still waiting for the recipe. And for the record the object code in Obama’s file does not display JBIG2Decode… so next excuse to throw at the wall?

          Reply
          • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 9:24 pm

            Obtain a copy of the LFBC.

            Place on Xerox Workcenter 7655 or 7535. Select “e-mail”, enter e-mail address, select file type “PDF”, send e-mail.

            Open e-mailed PDF on a Mac in Preview. Select “File>Print>Save” as PDF”. Give the file a new name.

            Now you have two versions of the PDF (the original e-mailed from the Xerox and the Preview version).

            Open both in Illustrator and in WordPad. Compare differences.

      • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 8:55 pm

        Sorry I should have read all of your post. Edge Erase creates the white border that surrounds the White House PDF. It does not create the clipping mask. But when you save the PDF in Preview it does create a clipping mask.

        Reply
        • therak   July 29, 2013 at 9:03 pm

          False. PREVIEW does not create a clipping mask to hide data. That ONLY happens from human manipulation in a vector program like Illustrator. Preview does not have that capability.

          Reply
          • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 9:09 pm

            Even the Cold Case Posse’s “expert” Tim Selaty said Preview creates the clipping ask.

            Again try it for yourself.

            Open the President’s 2010 tax return in Illustrator there is no clipping mask. Then open and save it in Preview, there will now be a clipping mask.

          • therak   July 29, 2013 at 9:15 pm

            Whenever you open any document in Illustrator you will see clipping masks. The difference is they are not clipping masks that HIDE data. Thus a clipping mask can be seen… but to have a clipping mask that HIDES information — that is something that only occurs through human manipulation.

          • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 9:27 pm

            The clipping mask hides part of the green background. Are you suggesting that those two smudges are information?

          • therak   July 29, 2013 at 9:40 pm

            Clearly you don’t understand what you are looking at. There are hidden pixels outside the clipping mask. A clipping mask is like a window. Typically everything is inside the window and you can see it. But you can also SET a clipping mask to hide anything outside the window edges. However, HIDING information can only be done via human manipulation within a vector program. This is not something that happens in a scanning process. When you release the clipping mask to view everything in Obama’s PDF file… there are a multitude of pixel information suddenly visible.

            So no, I’m not talking about two smudges. While they are curious as well… the bigger picture is proof enough of manipulation and I do not need to justify “what kind of pixels” are hidden but rather that the pixels are hidden at all — any hidden pixels are problematic.

          • cehughes   July 29, 2013 at 10:05 pm

            Sorry, but open the 2010 tax returns. There is no clipping mask that runs around the border. Now save it on a Mac in Preview, there will be a clipping mask that runs around the border and would hide information.

            This is exactly what Tim Selaty Jr. told the CCP.

          • therak   July 29, 2013 at 10:23 pm

            But I have opened them… and there ARE clipping masks. This is what I mean when I say you don’t realize what you’re looking at. ANYTIME you open ANYTHING in ILLUSTRATOR… you will see a clipping mask around each object and/or layer depending if the object is a separate vector object or the entire layer if the object is a separate layered raster object.

            Thus each layer is broken down into two sublayers… the clipping mask which defines the outer border of the object (NO HIDDEN PIXELS when produced by scanning). The second sublayer will be the object itself.

            You need to understand graphic programs before you start throwing things up against the wall. Where is the verifiable recipe for scanning. Just telling me to scan as a PDF is not enough. There will be a dialog box. What scanning PDF SETTINGS will provide the verifiable and repeatable problems seen in Obama’s birth cert.?

          • Kevin   July 30, 2013 at 4:51 pm

            Guess again. The hiding around the edges is the “Edge Erase” feature of the Xerox 7655. It’s useful for removing the marks of staples in the corner.

            Try to get out of conspiracy theory denial mode for just a second. Just a week after the White House released the birth certificate, the Hawaii Department of Health updated its Obama FAQ to say:

            “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”

            Read that as many times as it takes to sink in.

            The White House scanned it with an office machine they’ve used for documents in the past, they opened and saved it on a Mac (it was rotated) and that’s all there is. You birthers never deserved an explanation of every bit in the PDF, but you got it anyway. But we anti-birthers knew from the beginning that you’d just deny it, like you deny the rest the facts. It’s how conspiracy theorists think. It’s in the psychological literature–go read about yourself.

      • Kevin   July 30, 2013 at 4:22 pm

        The Xerox explains everything. It’s not something “thrown up against the wall”–it is the final conclusion. It is the end of the story. It proves that none of the birther image experts is competent, since they all said that what the Xerox machine does is impossible. All of the document detractors have been discredited.

        Reply
        • therak   July 30, 2013 at 9:02 pm

          According to the Xerox manual… page 21 – QUOTE: “Edge Erase – DELETES the edges of the image”

          http://download.support.xerox.com/pub/docs/WC4150/userdocs/any-os/en/WC4150_Getting_Started_Guide_EN.pdf

          NOTE: “Deleting” pixel information is not the same as “HIDING” pixel information

          Reply
          • therak   July 30, 2013 at 9:18 pm

            The Xerox argument that you throw up against the wall also has a problem since the Xerox is NOT IN THE METADATA.

            The Xerox IS in the metadata of the tax forms… but there’s no identifying information in the PDF metadata that proves the file was ever scanned. This is a major problem. Especially since the object code proves it is manufactured.

          • cehughes   July 31, 2013 at 9:13 am

            On the White House LFBC PDF if you release the clipping mask the document still has a white border. This was created by edge erase. The clipping mask was created by Preview.

            Open the 2010 tax form in Illustrator. It does not have a border clipping mask.

            Now open it in Preview and select File>Print>Save as PDF. It now has a border clipping mask.

          • therak   July 31, 2013 at 1:11 pm

            Apparently you have a comprehension problem… See previous comments. Again, there is NO EVIDENCE THAT XEROX (or ANY SCAN) was provided in metadata.

            Second… when you go to File>Print> Save as PDF… you get a dialog box with a myriad of option choices. So let’s try this again: WHERE IS THE VERIFIABLE RECIPE THAT WILL PROVIDE REPEATABLE RESULTS FOR EVERYONE TO VERIFY?

            When you scan with the Xerox… what settings… what software? For example, if scanning to PDF… are you using Acrobat or third party software? What settings in EVERY DIALOG BOX ALONG THE WAY? PROVIDE THE RECIPE so we can all play along and verify your confidence that the results are consistently repeatable.

            Added bonus… run it through PREVIEW and give that recipe too… so we can get the exact same metadata and object code for all the important factors that point to fraud.

            No one will provide this recipe… It’s almost as if it doesn’t exist.

          • cehughes   July 31, 2013 at 9:49 pm

            The Xerox scanner has proprietary software that creates the PDF. And it uses Mixed Raster Content.

            Why is that so hard for you to understand?

            If you really think you need to know every setting on the Xerox – ask here:

            http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/the-xerox-preview-pdf-objects/

          • cehughes   July 31, 2013 at 9:50 pm

            From up thread:

            “WHY IS IT NOT IN THE METADATA FOR THE BIRTH CERT. PDF?”

            Because after it was scanned on the Xerox WorkCentre, it was opened in Preview and Saved as a PDF. This wipes out the previous metadata and writes in the metadata from {review.

            Want proof?

            Open the President’s 2010 tax return PDF (let’s call that the Tax PDF) in the Adobe Reader.

            Now right click anywhere on the document and select “Document Properties”

            You should see the following metadata:

            Created: 4/15/2011 6:08:17 PM
            Modified: 4/18/2011 4:07:56 PM (this will change when you save it to your computer)

            Application: Xerox WorkCentre 7655
            PDF Producer: Xerox WorkCentre 7655
            File Size: 1.79 MB (1,876,300 Bytes)
            Page SIze: 8.50 x 11.00 in
            Tagged PDF: No
            Number of Pages: 59
            Fast Web View: No

            Now open Tax PDF on a Mac computer in Preview and select File>Print>Save as PDF.

            The new PDF (let’s call that Preview Tax PDF) will have the following metadata

            Created: (this will change to the date you save it to your computer)
            Modified: (this will change to the date you save it to your computer)

            Application: Preview
            PDF Producer: Mac OS X 10.x.x.Quartz PDF Context
            PDF Version: 1.3 (Acrobat 4.x)
            File Size: 7.98 MB (8,364,966 Bytes)
            Page SIze: 8.50 x 11.00 in
            Tagged PDF: No
            Number of Pages: 59
            Fast Web View: No

            The Tax PDF in Illustrator has 59 8-bit layers (one for each page) and multiple 1-bit layers. The 1-bit layers were filtered with JBIG2Decode. There is no clipping mask along the border in the PDF.

            The Preview Tax PDF also has 59 8-bit layers and multiple 1-bit layers. The 1-bit layers were filtered with FlateDecode. There is a clipping mask along the border in the PDF.

            Preview obscures the previous metadata, however the bloggers who did these tests were able to find a residual embedded comment that tracks back to the Xerox machine. That is what led them to the Xerox WorkCentre in the first place.

  27. OBAMA FAILED E-VERIFY   July 29, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    “whilst not a proven forgery” – dozens of computer/document experts say it’s a 100% Fraud.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.